R v Puckeridge - [2000] NSWCCA 193

CITATION: R v Puckeridge [2000] NSWCCA 193

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60722/97

HEARING DATE(S): 19/05/00

JUDGMENT DATE:
5 June 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Roy Robert Puckeridge

JUDGMENT OF: Heydon JA at 1; James J at 2; Bell J at 51

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 70012/96

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Ireland J

COUNSEL : PG Berman - Crown
GP Craddock - Appellant

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor - Crown
TA Murphy - Appellant

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60722/97

Heydon JA
James J
Bell J
Monday 5 June 2000

REGINA v Roy Robert Puckeridge
JUDGMENT

1   HEYDON JA. I agree with James J
2   JAMES J: This is an appeal by Roy Robert Puckeridge against his conviction after a trial in the Supreme Court before Ireland J and a jury on a charge of murdering Patricia Merle Thomas at Northmead between 10 August 1995 and 22 August 1995.
3   This is not the first time this appeal has been before this Court. The appeal first came before this Court, differently constituted, in 1998. The Court then held, by majority, that the appeal should be allowed and the appellant’s conviction should be quashed, on the ground that the evidence at the trial was not capable of excluding a reasonable possibility that Mrs Thomas’ death had not been caused by an act of the appellant.
4   The High Court granted the Crown special leave to appeal from this decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal and on the hearing of the appeal to the High Court it was conceded by counsel for the respondent to that appeal, that is the present appellant, that the appeal to the High Court should be allowed. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders made by the Court of Criminal Appeal and remitted the present appellant’s appeal against conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeal for the hearing and determination of the other grounds of appeal relied on by the appellant.
5   At the trial and on the hearing of this appeal there was no dispute about any of the following facts. Mrs Thomas lived alone in a unit in a block of units at Northmead. In August 1995 the appellant also lived in a unit in the same block of units, which he shared with a man named Campbell. The appellant had formerly lived in another unit in the same block, which he had shared with a man named McIlroy. On 13 August 1995 Mrs Thomas attended a church service. On 20 September 1995 her body was found in a shallow grave in a garden near the unit occupied by McIlroy. On 18 August 1995 a plumber had repaired a pipe, which had been broken during the digging of the grave. Accordingly, it was clear that Mrs Thomas had died at some time between 13 August 1995 and 18 August 1995. By the time Mrs Thomas’ body was found on 20 September 1995, it had…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Puckeridge

Details

AGLC: R v Puckeridge [2000] NSWCCA 193
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 193
Decision Date: 5 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Puckeridge involved an appeal by Roy Robert Puckeridge against his conviction of murdering Patricia Merle Thomas. The appeal was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal, with Heydon JA, James J, and Bell J presiding. The appeal raised issues regarding the trial judge's directions to the jury on the cause of death, the appellant's case, and the onus and standard of proof. The appellant's conviction was initially quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal, but the High Court later allowed an appeal by the Crown, setting aside the previous decision and remitting the case back to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal centred around the trial judge's directions to the jury concerning the cause of death and the standard of proof required for a conviction. The appellant argued that the trial judge had incorrectly directed the jury in relation to the reasonable possibility of death resulting from natural causes or a spontaneous rupture of an aneurysm. The appellant contended that the trial judge had either withdrawn this issue from the jury or directed them to disregard the evidence of Dr Collins, one of the defence's expert witnesses.

In considering these grounds of appeal, the Court found that the trial judge had not erred in his directions to the jury. The Court held that it was for the jury to determine whether any possible cause of death raised in the evidence was a reasonably possible cause, even if it had not been characterised as such by any witness. The trial judge had consistently directed the jury that the onus of proof to eliminate any reasonable possibility of an alternative cause of death rested on the Crown. The Court further held that the trial judge had not withdrawn Dr Collins' evidence from the jury but had, in fact, summarised his evidence in detail, including the various possibilities he had raised. The Court concluded that any error by the trial judge had not been established, and the appeal against conviction should be dismissed.

In conclusion, the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding no error in the trial judge's directions to the jury. The appellant's conviction for the murder of Patricia Merle Thomas was upheld.

Orders